Security systems and home automation networks are described in numerous patents, and have been in prevalent use for over 40 years. In the United States, there are over 14 million security systems in residential homes alone. The vast majority of these systems are hardwired systems, meaning the keypad, system controller, and various intrusion sensors are wired to each other. These systems are easy to install when a home is first being constructed and access to the interiors of walls is easy; however, the cost increases substantially when wires must be added to an existing home. On average, the security industry charges approximately $75 per opening (i.e., window or door) to install a wired intrusion sensor (such as a magnet and reed switch), where most of this cost is due to the labor of drilling holes and running wires to each opening. For this reason, most homeowners only monitor a small portion of their openings. This is paradoxical because most homeowners actually want security systems to cover their entire home.
In order to induce a homeowner to install a security system, many security companies will underwrite a portion of the costs of installing a security system. Therefore, if the cost of installation were $1,500, the security company may only charge $500 and then require the homeowner to sign a multi-year contract with monthly fees. The security company then recovers its investment over time. Interestingly enough, if a homeowner wants to purchase a more complete security system, the revenue to the security company and the actual cost of installation generally rise in lockstep, keeping the approximate $1,000 investment constant. This actually leads to a disincentive for security companies to install more complete systems—it uses up more technician time without generating a higher monthly contract or more upfront profit. Furthermore, spending more time installing a more complete system for one customer reduces the total number of systems that any given technician can install per year, thereby reducing the number of monitoring contracts that the security company obtains per year.
In order to reduce the labor costs of installing wired systems into existing homes, wireless security systems have been developed in the last 10 to 20 years. These systems use RF communications for at least a portion of the keypads and intrusion sensors. Typically, a transceiver is installed in a central location in the home. Then, each opening is outfitted with an intrusion sensor connected to a small battery powered transmitter. The initial cost of the wireless system can range from $25 to $50 for each transmitter, plus the cost of the centrally located transceiver. This may seem less than the cost of a wired system, but in fact the opposite is true over a longer time horizon. Wireless security systems have demonstrated lower reliability than wired systems, leading to higher service and maintenance costs. For example, each transmitter contains a battery that drains over time (perhaps only after a year or two), requiring a service call to replace the battery. Further, in larger houses, some of the windows and doors may be an extended distance from the centrally located transceiver, causing the wireless communications to intermittently fade out. In fact, the UL standard for wireless security systems allows wireless messages to be missed for up to 12 hours before considering the missed messages to be a problem. This implies an allowable error rate of 91%, assuming a once per hour supervisory rate.
These types of wireless security systems generally operate under 47 CFR 15.231(a), which places limits on the amount of power that can be transmitted. For example, at 433 MHz, used by the wireless transmitters of at least one manufacturer, an average field strength of only 11 mV/m is permitted at 3 meters (equivalent to approximately 36 microwatts). At 345 MHz, used by the wireless transmitters of another manufacturer, an average field strength of only 7.3 mV/m is permitted at 3 meters (equivalent to approximately 16 microwatts). Control or supervisory transmissions are only permitted once per hour, with a duration not to exceed one second. If these same transmitters wish to transmit data under 47 CFR 15.231(e), the average field strengths at 345 and 433 MHz are reduced to 2.9 and 4.4 mV/m, respectively. The current challenges of using these methods of transmission are discussed in various patents, including U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,087,933, 6,137,402, 6,229,997, 6,288,639, and 6,294,992.
In either wired or wireless prior art security systems, additional sensors such as glass breakage sensors or motion sensors are an additional cost beyond a system with only intrusion sensors. Each glass breakage or motion sensor can cost $30 to $50 or more, not counting the labor cost of running wires from the alarm panel to these sensors. In the case of wireless security systems, the glass breakage or motion sensor can also be wireless, but then these sensors suffer from the same drawback as the transmitters used for intrusion sensing—they are battery powered and therefore require periodic servicing to replace the batteries and possible reprogramming in the event of memory loss.
Because existing wireless security systems are not reliable and wired security systems are difficult to install, many homeowners forego self-installation of security systems and either call professionals or do without. It is interesting to note that, based upon the rapid growth of home improvement chains such as Home Depot and Lowe's, there is a large market of do-it-yourself homeowners that will attempt carpentry, plumbing, and tile—but not security. There is, therefore, an established need for a security system that is both reliable and capable of being installed by the average homeowner.
Regardless of whether a present wired or wireless security system has been installed by a security company or self-installed, almost all present security systems are capable of only monitoring the house for intrusion, fire, or smoke. These investments are technology limited to a substantially single purpose. There would be a significant advantage to the homeowner if the security system were also capable of supporting additional home automation and lifestyle enhancing functions. There is, therefore, an apparent need for a security system that is actually a network of devices serving many functions in the home. It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide security system for use in residential and commercial buildings that can be self-installed or installed by professionals at much lower cost than present systems.
In addition, there are a large number of hazard detectors, such as smoke detectors, on the market. The US national fire code requires the installation of smoke detectors (e.g., AC power, battery backed up) on every floor of a house as well as in every bedroom. In most cases, the installed smoke detectors are interconnected using wired or wireless means such that if one detector sounds a siren, all detectors also sound their siren. In addition to smoke detectors, some houses also contain fire detectors and/or carbon monoxide detectors.
While there are an estimated eighteen to twenty million homes with some type of monitored security system installed, a minority of these security systems also monitor the home for fire or smoke. Unfortunately, even those security systems that due monitor the home for smoke or fire do a poor job of such. The National Fire Code and the National Fire Protection Agency require that homes have a smoke detector on every floor of a home and in every bathroom. However, many security systems that supposedly also monitor for fire and/or smoke include only one or two detectors.
Many security systems typically only include one or two detectors because connection to the existing home smoke detectors in a home may only be performed by a licensed electrician and most security system installers are not licensed electricians. Therefore, most security system installers cannot connect the security system to the existing smoke and fire detectors in a home. Instead, such security installers typically install a separate set of detectors that are either wired to the security system with low voltage wiring or are wireless. As result, security installers typically install fewer detectors than required by the National Fire Code and the National Fire Protection Agency because of the cost of the separate set of detectors.
In summary, the security industry does not leverage existing hazard detectors in a home, but, instead, typically installs a separate set of low voltage (or wireless) hazard detectors connected to the security system. As a result, many such homes have two independent sets of hazard detectors—the pre-existing hazard detectors (installed, for example, during construction of the home) and the hazard detectors of the security system. Thus, if it happens that a fire occurs, the fire could be detected by the pre-existing set of hazard detectors but not by the hazard detectors of the security system due to differences in number and/or location of the detectors. Furthermore, the pre-existing hazard detectors are often not connected to a remote monitoring service and may simply provide an audible alarm. Consequently, even though the consumer may have a remote monitoring service for detection of the hazard, reliance on the pre-existing hazard detectors in some areas of the home (e.g., to reduce the installation costs of the security system) may reduce the overall effectiveness of the hazard detection system. The present invention provides a system, device, and method to leverage the pre-existing hazard detectors, to integrate pre-existing hazard detector into a security system and to provide remote monitoring of pre-existing hazard detectors.
Additional objects and advantages of this invention will be apparent from the following detailed description.